The impact of managements’ unethical behavior on the organziational trust

• Autorzy: Puspaningrum Astrid , Thongsri Nattaporn , Prabandari Sri Palupi

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17512/pjms.2020.21.2.23

Warianty tytułu

PL

Wpływ nieetycznego zachowania zarządzania na zaufanie organizacyjne

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The aim linked with the present study is to investigate the mediating role of experience of psychological contract violation on the relationship between unethical behaviors and trust. For this purpose, the study utilized the data of 179 operational managers of manufacturing industry of Thailand. The study applies structural educational modelling (SEM) approach for investigating the empirical results. Results of the study show that experience of psychological contract violation significantly mediates the negative relationship between unethical behaviors and trust. Formation of intentional relationships which increase the organizational restrictions has confirmed a challenging struggle for managers. There are some other problems faced by an organization, including the problems of trust, psychological contracts and the ethics and emerging area for researchers. Generally, there are some incidences in the organization for the study that is unwritten but exciting on the significant performance variables. Organization’s commitment regarding the contentment of their promises, known as a psychological contract, is one of the classifications that should be examined

PL

Celem związanym z niniejszym badaniem jest zbadanie mediacyjnej roli doświadczenia naruszenia psychologicznego umowy na związek między nieetycznymi zachowaniami a zaufaniem. W tym celu w badaniu wykorzystano dane 179 kierowników operacyjnych przemysłu wytwórczego Tajlandii. W badaniu zastosowano podejście do strukturalnego modelowania edukacyjnego (SEM) do badania wyników empirycznych. Wyniki badania pokazują, że doświadczenie naruszenia psychologicznego kontraktu istotnie pośredniczy w negatywnym związku między nieetycznymi zachowaniami a zaufaniem. Tworzenie intencjonalnych relacji zwiększających ograniczenia organizacyjne potwierdziło trudną walkę dla menedżerów. Istnieją inne problemy, z którymi boryka się organizacja, w tym problemy związane z zaufaniem, umowami psychologicznymi oraz etyką i pojawiającymi się obszarami dla badaczy. Zasadniczo w organizacji istnieją pewne przypadki, które są niepisane, ale ekscytujące w przypadku znaczących zmiennych wydajności. Zaangażowanie organizacji w spełnianie obietnic, zwane umową psychologiczną, jest jedną z klasyfikacji, które należy zbadać

Słowa kluczowe

EN

management unethical behavior; organizational trust; manufacturing industry

PL

nieetyczne zachowanie kierownictwa; zaufanie organizacyjne; przemysł wytwórczy

• Wydawca: Czestochowa University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Management Studies
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 21, No. 2
• Strony: 328--341
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 32 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Puspaningrum Astrid

• Management Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia

autor

Thongsri Nattaporn

• Faculty of Science and Industrial Technology, Prince of Songkla University, Surat Thani Campus, Thailand

autor

Prabandari Sri Palupi

• Management Department, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia

Bibliografia

• 1. Akker, L. V., Heres, L., Lasthuizen, K., & Six, F. E. (2009). Ethical leadership and trust: It's all about meeting expectations.
• 2. Al Khatib, J. A., Stanton, A. D. A., & Rawwas, M. Y. (2005). Ethical segmentation of consumers in developing countries: a comparative analysis. International Marketing Review.
• 3. Bi, Q. (2019). Cultivating loyal customers through online customer communities: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Business Research, 103, 34-44.
• 4. Borowiecki, R., & Makieła, Z. J. (2019). Determinants of development of entrepreneurship and innovation in local areas of economic activity: a case study analysis. Paper presented at the Forum Scientiae Oeconomia.
• 5. Boylu, Y., & Yıldırım, Ö. Ü. M. (2018). The Relationship Of Psy chological Contract Breach Between Organizational Trust And Organizational Cynicism: A Study In Hotels. Is, Güc: Endüstri Iliskileri ve Insan Kaynaklari Dergisi, 20(3), 25-48.
• 6. Caldwell, C., Hayes, L., Bernal, P., & Karri, R. (2008). Ethical stewardship – implications for leadership and trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 153-164.
• 7. Ciulla, J. B. (2020). The importance of leadership in shaping business values. In The Search for Ethics in Leadership, Business, and Beyond (153-163). Springer, Cham
• 8. Chugh, D., Bazerman, M. H., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy, 74-95.
• 9. Davis, P. R., Jefferies, M., & Ke, Y. (2017). Psychological contracts: framework for relationships in construction procurement. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(8), 04017028.
• 10. Deng, H., Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Yang, Q. (2018). Beyond reciprocity: A conservation of resources view on the effects of psychological contract violation on third parties. Journal of applied psychology, 103(5), 561.
• 11. Elahee, M. N., Kirby, S. L., & Nasif, E. (2002). National culture, trust, and perceptions about ethical behavior in intra‐and cross‐cultural negotiations: An analysis of NAFTA countries. Thunderbird International Business Review, 44(6), 799-818
• 12. Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2013). Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic leadership and organizational deviance. Management Research Review, 36(9), 828-848.
• 13. Ho, M. H. W., Ghauri, P. N., & Larimo, J. A. (2018). Institutional distance and knowledge acquisition in international buyer-supplier relationships: The moderating role of trust. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(2), 427-447.
• 14. Lee, C. H., & Ha, B. C. (2018). The impact of buyer-supplier relationships’ social capital on bi-directional information sharing in the supply chain. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing.
• 15. Malhotra, N., Sahadev, S., & Purani, K. (2017). Psychological contract violation and customer intention to reuse online retailers: Exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 75, 17-28.
• 16. Ning, N., & Zhaoyi, L. (2017). Psychological contract breach, organizational disidentification, and employees' unethical behavior: Organizational ethical climate as moderator. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 45(9), 1409-1424.
• 17. Paillé, P., & Raineri, N. (2016). Trust in the context of psychological contract breach: Implications for environmental sustainability. Journal of environmental psychology, 45, 210-220.
• 18. Pruitt, D.G., (1981). Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press, NY. Quinn, D.P., Jones, T.M., 1995. An agent morality view of business policy. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 22–42.
• 19. Robinson, S.L., Morrison, E.W., (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 21 (5), 525–547.
• 20. Rungsithong, R., Meyer, K. E., & Roath, A. S. (2017). Relational capabilities in Thai buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing.
• 21. Salin, D., & Notelaers, G. (2018). The effects of workplace bullying on witnesses: violation of the psychological contract as an explanatory mechanism?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-21.
• 22. Shahnawaz, M. G., & Goswami, K. (2011). Effect of psychological contract violation on organizational commitment, trust and turnover intention in private and public sector Indian organizations. Vision, 15(3), 209-217.
• 23. Singh, J. J., Iglesias, O., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2012). Does having an ethical brand matter? The influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty. Journal of business ethics, 111(4), 541-549.
• 24. Snyder, J. L., & Cistulli, M. D. (2011). The relationship between workplace e-mail privacy and psychological contract violation, and their influence on trust in top management and affective commitment. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 121-129.
• 25. Sroka, W. (2019). New trends in management: Regional and cross-border perspectives. Administratie si Management Public (32), 156-156.
• 26. Sutton, G., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Integrating expectations, experiences, and psychological contract violations: A longitudinal study of new professionals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 493-514.
• 27. Thompson, J. A., & Hart, D. W. (2006). Psychological contracts: A nano-level perspective on social contract theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3), 229-241.
• 28. Tuan, L. T. (2012). The linkages among leadership, trust, and business ethics. Social Responsibility Journal.
• 29. Van der Valk, W., Sumo, R., Dul, J., & Schroeder, R. G. (2016). When are contracts and trust necessary for innovation in buyer-supplier relationships? A necessary condition analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22(4), 266-277.
• 30. Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Ngo, H. Y. (2016). Ethical leadership behavior and employee justice perceptions: The mediating role of trust in organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 493-504.
• 31. Yan, S., & Zhu, Y. (2013). Impact of psychological contract violation on interpersonal trust during mergers and acquisitions. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(3), 487-495.
• 32. Yip, J. A., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Trust promotes unethical behavior: Excessive trust, opportunistic exploitation, and strategic exploitation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 216-220.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).